Star Trek: On the Fan/Corporation Relationship

[dewline]

Inspired by the Axanar arguments.

"Star Trek fans have always had a developed sense of ownership in the series and its elements. It is a core aspect of Star Trek, and one that Roddenberry himself constantly nurtured."

I fear this will not end well for anyone involved, if it continues in any of several ways threatened.

Also I consider this: it is now demonstrated as a matter of historical fact that CBS/Paramount cannot hope to meet the demand for product by its own devices. And that range of devices is considerable. That they wish to do so, that they wish to be able to do so, is also beyond dispute. But it's not practically possible.

Comments

[seawasp]

Cannot is a big word. If they believed that the demand for their product would support 3 blockbuster movies, 4 video games, and 2 TV series a year, they'd do it. Presumably they've examined the market and determined that it would end up being not sufficiently profitable to justify the effort.

Axanar's brought to a head a problem that's been around for a long time. They made a bad mistake (paying some of their people, in what was supposed to be a fan production) and they got big enough to notice, but the fact that copyright has been extended to ridiculous lengths AND that trademark has been allowed to apply to almost everything AND still has "you must defend or lose your IP" as part of its established case law, meant that SOMEONE would eventually be the target. Paramount/CBS couldn't ignore it with impunity; they'd already stretched their IP credibility by permitting the other major Trek fanworks.

Now they've released some (really restrictive) guidelines, which the fans will see as hostile and destructive, but which Paramount/CBS' lawyers undoubtedly see as ridiculously lenient and even dangerous.

The only real solution is to fix the LAW -- make it so that copyright expires in about a generation (as it used to -- originally it was a 14+14 or 28 year duration) and so that Trademark is more narrowly applicable AND doesn't carry the "must defend or dilute/lose" requirement.

It's a lot easier for a company to say "eh, who cares" when their IP isn't potentially degraded just by ignoring fanboys.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

When I say they cannot hope to meet the demand, I mean that. Despite however much product they generate - movies, TV shows, spinoff merchandise - and however much revenue that product generates in turn, there is still unsatisfied demand. CBS/Paramount can only generate so much product, directly and through authorized license-holders, each year.

That said, I think you've hit at least one of the big nails squarely on the head. Statute and case law have both got to be dealt with here. The exact nature of the remedy has been argued over for decades now, of course, and there are entrenched interests that may fight any remedy that stands a change of practical success.

[seawasp]

Well, okay, yes, if by "demand" you mean "there's still (number larger than zero) fans who want more" they can't satisfy it. But I look at it more as "there's still (number large enough to make it worth my while as a major corporation to satisfy) fans who want more and can afford to pay for it". They can address the latter demand, but not the former.

And yes, a lot of people will fight any attempt to reform the law.